Does DNA Prove Noah’s Ark?

[Habitual_Ritual]

In one of the most provocative and misunderstood studies of the year, scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have made an astonishing discovery: All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday. Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth's creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/11/does-dna-prove-noahs-ark.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=share_bar

[Prayerful]

In one of the most provocative and misunderstood studies of the year, scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have made an astonishing discovery: All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday. Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth's creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/11/does-dna-prove-noahs-ark.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=share_bar

I read that, interesting piece.

[Daniel]

I've read the article, but I see three huge problems with it:

1.) If the scientific research is correct (and that's a big "if"), the timing is still way off. If Noe's flood really happened, the flood would have only been roughly 5,000 years ago. Not 100 million to 200 million.

2.) The article's author's view just sounds like the old "myth" theory: there really was some "cataclysmic event" at some point a long time ago, but none of the flood myths (including the biblical flood narrative) are true historical accounts.

3.) I believe QMR brought this up in a different thread, but 9/10 animal species doesn't cut it. If Noe's flood really happened, we'd expect to find this in no less than 10/10 animal species. (Except perhaps maybe the fish.)

[Kreuzritter]

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding, and it just goes to show that you WANT the narrative of Genesis to be untrue.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Well, I can assure you my sympathies are not with the YECs, who (once again) have shown themselves a bunch of intellectually dishonest charlatans.

The study showed that 90% of the animal species studied came into existence about 100,000 - 200,000 years ago, assuming mitochondrial molecular clock estimates to be accurate.

It did not show, whether for humans or any other species that came into existence at that time, that everyone today is the offspring of a single pair.  The authors did not claim that it did, nor could they, for mitochondrial DNA can tell you nothing whatsoever about the size of the founder population.  But the story is very cleverly edited so as to give the impression that the authors fought against this conclusion of a "common father and mother" as hard as they could.

Of course, anyone could have checked this, and put a stop to this story going viral on all the conservative news outlets.  But we live in an era of "fake news" and "alternative facts", where propounding the narrative is much more important than truth.

And of course here, no one will admit this either.  Instead, they will attempt to make the fault be mine for pointing it out.  It must be the result of some nefarious motives, wishful thinking, or whatever, on my part.

[Habitual_Ritual]

mitochondrial DNA can tell you nothing whatsoever about the size of the founder population. 

But a lightning bolt hitting a primordial puddle made everything. Okey doke

[Quaremerepulisti]

mitochondrial DNA can tell you nothing whatsoever about the size of the founder population. 

But a lightning bolt hitting a primordial public made everything. Okey doke

Yep, just as I predicted.  Never admit you're wrong; the problem must lie with the one who says you are.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Someone hasn't heard of mitochondrial eve. Interesting:

However, in the very same meeting, Maryellen Ruvolo, from Harvard U. presented new data that used DNA sequencing rather than restriction analysis to study a part of the cytochrome oxidase gene found in the mitochondrial genome. The original work was criticized because it was based on a rapidly evolving part of the mitochondria. Ruvolo's work was based on a slowly evolving portion of the mitochondrial genome and he got the same answer as is found in the original work.

What his work shows is that the short time for Eve is essentially correct. The "multi-regional continuity" people were hoping for an older date, like maybe 1 million years. That would have allowed the mitochondrial Eve data to fit with the "multi-regional continuity" theory. However that did not happen.

Currently the battle is still raging over the history of Modern Human Origins and we still have the same two irreconcilable scientific camps:

The mitochondrial Eve data, that supports the "out-of-Africa" theory where Eve's decendents, on coming out of Africa, are seen as taking over the whole world and overcoming all the other man types with no sign of interbreeding, only 100,000 years ago.
The continuous genetic change of fossil data in many places on the globe seems to suggest to many that mankind has been advancing across the globe in a parallel multiregional evolutionary process. if Eve's descendants overtook the whole world suplanting all other peoples, there would be a break in the type of fossils seen in the field. The older fossils would not relate to the newer fossils that descend from Eve. There would be no way to explain the continuous change of fossil remains that is seen around the world, using the mitochondrial Eve data.
So, there seems to be no way for all the data to presently fit together. It is true, as "Kip" Thorne from Australian National University, mentioned: "The fossil evidence is really scrappy. There just isn't enough of it." However, it does not look like the situation will change anytime soon. Wolpoff thinks that the controversy will continue until they are all dead. Then the next generation, he says, will have to decide.

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm

[Quaremerepulisti]

Someone hasn't heard of mitochondrial eve. Interesting:

Again, never, ever, admit you're wrong.  Take a smug tone and assume your opponents are ignorant and/or evil.  After all, they must be, since they disagree with you.  Post something only tangentially related to the actual topic and pretend it completely demolishes your opponent's argument - without, of course, bothering to take the trouble to attempt to show that it actually does, where you might be vulnerable to a well-argued refutation.  Remember, you're on the side of truth and therefore intellectual honesty is optional.

For those who actually do care about the science, the existence of mitochondrial Eve (which is a certainty if common descent is true, and which everyone knows about) does not entail descent from a single pair.  And obviously not, since other males (not mitochondrial Eve's sons) existent at the time could have mated with Eve's daughters.